On 11/15/2015 08:24 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 11/15/15 9:53 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> I suggest you review the original thread on this subject before a line
>> was ever written. "multiple" (see subject line on this whole thread) is
>> clearly what is being asked for. Making people turn that into a single
>> argument is not what was envisaged. See for example Pavel's original
>> example involving use of xargs where that's clearly not at all easy.
> I can see (small) value in having a new option that is like -c but
> interprets the string as a fully-featured script like -f. (Small
> because the same behavior can already be had with here strings in bash.)
>
> The behavior should be exactly like -f, including all the behavior with
> single-transaction and single-step modes or whatever.
>
> But then I will point out that we currently don't handle multiple -f
> options.
>
>
If we can only have one I would say the value is vanishingly small.
As to -f, I don't see why we shouldn't allow multiple such options, only
that nobody has bothered to do it.
cheers
andrew
